​After Pres. Donald Trump called the rules of U.S. Congress “archaic” this week and said that they are a “bad thing for the country,” his chief of staff said that the Administration has “looked at” ways to limit or repeal the First Amendment. Fortunately, presidents can’t amend the Constitution, but it’s clear that Trump doesn’t know anything about history or the law. In an interview on Sirius XM radio yesterday, Trump praised Andrew Jackson, a slave-owning former president who oversaw the Trail of Tears and thought Native Americans killed off a lost white race, claiming that Jackson would have prevented the Civil War had he been in office when it broke out. Trump wrongly stated that Jackson was angered by the war when it broke out (he died 16 years before it started) and claimed that few investigate why the war erupted. “People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question,” Trump said. “But why was there the Civil War. Why would that one not have been worked out?” Trump’s startling historical ignorance—not to mention failure to grapple with 150 years of scholarly research into the war’s origins—is matched only by his implication that the president he most likens to himself, Jackson, could have “worked out” a deal to compromise on whether black people should be considered full human beings. We already knew that Trump gets his news from Fox News, but apparently he gets his history from the History Channel—paranoia, conspiracy, and racist dog-whistles.

Speaking of which…

​Late last week over at Lit Hub, Australian journalist Ramon Glazov published a fascinating piece on the development of alt-right views on the Aryan race and their similarity to the ancient astronaut school of archaeology. In the piece, Glazov correctly notes that modern so-called “alt-right” figures barely hide their allegiance to a vitalist view of whiteness, though today they are likely to place a somewhat decorous doily over the outright racism by cloaking it in terms of “Indo-European” heritage. We have seen this kind of reasoning many times before, notably with “alt-right” intellectual Jason Reza Jorjani, who promiscuously mixed ancient astronaut theories with Indo-European fetishism in order to cut out a wholly new semi-divine origin for the white race. Although Jorjani doesn’t appear in Glazov’s article, he is perhaps the epitome of the trends the author identifies.

But to return to Glazov’s article, he begins by tracing the origins of Aryan race theory back to Count Arthur de Gobineau, who in 1853 published 1,400 pages on human inequality, which more or less concluded that all innovation in civilization was due to the vitality and virility of white Aryans. Glazov quotes him this way:

In the above list no negro race is seen as the initiator of a civilization. Only when it is mixed with some other can it even be initiated into one. Similarly, no spontaneous civilization is to be found among the yellow races; and when the Aryan blood is exhausted stagnation supervenes.

​This argument, in more refined form, remains the lifeblood of the alt-right. Jorjani, for example, made a strikingly similar case, different only in masking race under the guise of culture, in alleging that Islam had sapped the vitality of the Indo-Aryan race and was responsible for the stagnation of Iranian culture, a stagnation that could be reversed by letting Aryan culture go free. Gobineau had said something quite similar, though reversing the connection of race and culture, by arguing that Buddhism and Islam were religions of “decay” that arose among racial inferiors and seduced the Aryans into dangerous race-mixing. The similarities to Jorjani’s argument cannot be accidental, even if Jorjani masks race with culture while Gobineau considered culture a function of race.

The count’s racial reasoning found an appreciative audience in the United States among slaveholders, in Europe among anti-Semites like Richard Wagner, and, of course, among the Nazis. His claim that there was an Aryan master race was a bolt of racist lightning whose distant thunderclaps echoed in the white Aryan masters of Theosophy, the white Atlantean world-conquerors of Ignatius Donnelly, and the fruitless quest for the “white gods” of the Americas among fringe historians. While Glazov does not make this connection explicitly, he does note that Gobineau was himself a fringe historian who tried to ascribe ancient civilizations to a vanished master race: “Faced with any evidence of non-white civilizations, he could claim that white people had created them and then vanished. His evaporating ‘Aryans’ were not unlike the ‘ancient astronauts’ that UFO loons credit with building the Pyramids.” Glazov implies that Gobineau created the trope, but he merely borrowed the claim from a long Euro-American tradition of denying nonwhite peoples their achievements. The myth of the lost white Mound Builders, for example, had a hundred years of literature behind it when he wrote. Nevertheless, Gobineau’s book gave scientific cover to similar claims, and if the ancient astronaut theory echoes his work, it is because the ancient astronaut theory merely reworked the racist old lost white race and/or Atlantis tropes, substituting space aliens for Theosophy’s ascended masters, who in turn substituted for the white Aryans of Atlantis and the white Nephilim they replaced. The notes may change but the music remains surprisingly the same.

This bit of connect-the-dots history, however, is only a sidelight to Glazov’s larger point, which is that the false claims and invented histories of the Aryan fetishists exist for a specific reason, one related to politics, culture, and above all identity: “All of their political ‘solutions’—segregation, separatism, immigration barriers—hinge on the assertion that white people are fundamentally different. Fantasies about prehistoric Aryans exist to fill this ideological need.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, when Glazov traces exactly how the alt-right thinks white people are different, he finds that nearly no one can agree. Instead, the answers represent two contradictory truths: Each claimant views his answer as representing a timeless and eternal truth about history and race, and each claimant’s view represent extremely modern concerns about politics and culture. Glazov’s analysis of Jared Taylor’s efforts to explain why the “white man and his civilization” are unique is biting:

If Mexicans and Malays “instinctively” hated “alien incursion,” national liberation movements against colonial rule would have formed centuries earlier. Today we can take the existence of Mexican and Malaysian nationalism for granted, but neither one was a thoughtless impulse. Someone, at some point, had to invent them and popularize them. If nationalism proceeded organically from race, we could also ask why there is so much sabre-rattling between Malaysia and Indonesia, or between India and Pakistan—countries whose boundaries and national identities did not exist before colonialism.

​Glazov’s article is a fascinating read, but his implication that much of what drives the alt-right is the desire to see white Europeans as special isn’t just limited to the alt-right. It suffuses many of those who cast themselves as truth tellers trying to revise history in new ways, even when they are on the left and instead see European culture (and its imagined prehistoric antecedents), rather than the white race per se, as the wellspring of utopia. Consider, for example, the latest musings from former television personality Scott Wolter, who published the third part of his article on the Kensington Rune Stone in the spring edition of his corporate newsletter. Amidst the recycling of familiar false claims, Wolter added conclusions that derive directly from the same idea that there is a unique and fundamentally different stream of knowledge that is inseparable from European culture that is sanctified by tradition, by history, and by the divine:

​Many believe the medieval Knights Templar evolved into modern Freemasonry. If so, it’s likely our Founding Fathers, many who were Freemasons, understood why the Templars came to North America to establish a “Free Templar State.” As we all know, our founders sought freedom from tyranny of monarchs, freedom of religion, and the basic individual rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

​Wolter’s views, mixing hyper-diffusionism with an effort to make America divine (literally descended from Jesus, in his view), are hardly unique in the annals of American history. In fact, I was struck by how much his leftist kumbaya celebration of the Free Templar State—in which a white elite became the ruling class over Native Americans, in an unfortunate echo of Leopold II’s genocidal Congo Free State—seemed to be a mirror image of what Glazov identifies as the views of Samuel T. Francis, a paleoconservative syndicated columnist who railed against assaults on “white racial and cultural identity.” Glazov quotes him trying to tie American government to the divine and ancient system of the Indo-Europeans, here performing the same secret occult work as the Templars as the vessels through which pass all that is good:

Some scholars believe that the tripartite structure of Indo-European society survived into medieval Europe with the division of society into “those who work, those who fight, and those who pray,” and it may also be reflected in the division of political functions into executive, judicial, and legislative in the U.S. Constitution, and even in the Christian idea of the Trinity.

Glazov correctly notes that transformation of the Founders into the mythic incarnation of the forces of divinity and history is a retroactive effort to sanctify one’s own political preferences, giving the sanction of eternal verity to events that are hardly old at all. “What counts as ‘primeval truth’ is, then, so relative it does not even have to be pre-modern.”

Individual politics shape how various claimants mold history to suit their ideology, but it probably is worth noting that the whole claim about a Free Templar State in America originated in France with Eugène Beauvois, a racist historian who ascribed Native Americans cultures to an influx of largely white Christian immigrants from Europe, starting with the Celts and ending with the Templars.

Wow. Wolter must really be jonesing for a platform now that his television career is over. Finished. Caput. Enough so that he would put his entire company at risk by exposing himself as a complete imbecile and fabricator of history in his own company newsletter, thus calling into question the expertise of anyone associated with the firm. He doesn't see it though, and never will. He truly is a marvel of moronic vanity.

Trump didn't call the Constitution archaic. If you look at the transcript of the interview The Independent is referring to, he is explicitly calling the rules of the House and Senate archaic.

Sadly, that mischaraterization is all over social media and will further the right wing claim that "fake news" is really a mainstream media problem.

Reply

TheBigMike

5/2/2017 05:23:40 pm

I am not one to defend the Wigged Pumpkin, but on this, you are technically correct ("the best kind of correct"). Drumpf was referring to the internal rules of the House and the Senate. However, what he was really doing was complaining that they won't give in to his every demand. the Constitution DOES state, quite clearly, that the House and Senate are permitted to set their own rules. They did. Now, though, because he passed his own self-imposed time limit for getting things done and has accomplished nothing, he wants to blame the House and the Senate and their "archaic" rules for not letting him act as Dictator and Chief.
Further, the Independent is a British news outlet. While I think that in this age, where the internet is usually within easy reach (at least in First World Nations, like the UK), even foreign new outlets should get these things right, they can be forgiven (at least a little) for not understanding that our constitution is different from theirs.
Ultimately, it is up to the consumers of news to fact check things, which is why Jason's blog is so wonderful. Those consumers that take things at face value are doing themselves a disservice.
On another note, representatives of the current administration have recently stated that they wish to repeal or at least alter the First Amendment in order to silence the "fake news." These kinds of statements do give credence to the idea that our small-handed president would believe that our constitution is archaic and outdated... He has also stated that the checks and balances should be taken away so that he can do what he wants. It's why he wants to disband the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Reply

Dee

5/2/2017 05:24:45 pm

You're right, that was about rules of Congress, the filibuster concept and so on. And the Democrats already made a big change to filibustering in 2013. But that was great, of course, and not changed to mean something else entirely in the news because, well, that was 2013.

Jason should perhaps stay away from politics, it's a swamp where science and the factual tends to bog down and turn on itself despite what is believed by many these days (a.k.a ideologists).

Reply

Colt Torakan

5/3/2017 03:22:18 pm

Colavito needs to stop the liberal rants against anything conservative or Republican and stick to what he knows. Yes Jason, we get you are a liberal snowflake with lots of guilt at being born white.

Isn't Iran named after Aryans? Should we expect the white supremacists to embrace them to their bosom soon?

Reply

At Risk

5/2/2017 02:46:11 pm

There is this odd carving of two men riding one horse at Rosslyn Chapel, which is a symbol of Templars. Then there is a Hooked-X embedded at the chapel, though it is in the form of a mason's mark, also containing a "diamond." We flash forward to the situation of the Hooked-X being depicted as part of a "secret" style of writing, in the latter part of the 19th century...a secret style of writing attributed, most likely it seems, to the Freemasons. Anyway, this is a potent arrangement of certain segments of history, though controversial...especially here.

I would like to have been the proverbial "fly on the mast," seeing exactly what happened as numerous Scandinavian ships plied the waters of North America, reaching down into previously unknown areas...down, down to Vinland, a very real place, a region well known and visited for hundreds of years. I would like to have seen that Catholic Bishop visit Vinland in the 12th century...you know, just to see what kind of "cultural impact" may have ensued.

For that matter, I would like to have been a seeing-all fly accompanying various Norse expeditions deep into America's medieval interior...down, down from Hudson Bay into the specific location where oceanic sources merge, creating a huge waterway circle. I would like to have been the fly watching as Norsemen carved their way into our future history books, one strike of the iron at a time. The fly sees that cultural influences ran two ways, and much earlier than previously thought.

Nevertheless, this question remains as yet unanswered:

Who--what medieval Entity--created the proposed Norse Code-stone I found in 2015, showing in miniature a situation not many paces away, where an obvious encoding is revealing (present tense) where something has been purposely buried--backed up by the modern technology of metal detectors. Who would have had the nerve and backing to roam this remote region? Greenlanders? How about the Catholic Church, Knights Templar, or pick your choice of wandering monks...or even an early post-Viking Scandinavian king?

At any rate, the many remarkable evidences in this "oceanic waterway merging area" quite clearly shows that it is likely that many Norse expeditions came into this MN/Dakotas region, not just one or two. Also, I think it is likely that the Kensington Runestone party were relative late-comers to the scene. I believe Wolter is right about a land claim, but I don't believe the KRS is the document showing it. I still take the KRS's message at face-value, and I think it is a true memorial stone.

I cannot help believing that the proposed Norse Code-stone I found is actually marking-out a huge land claim, since it is marking the discharge of the river (Pomme de Terre) reaching the farthest north of any rivers in the MN River watershed. (This, also, is closer even to the Continental Divide.) Not far from the code-stone, water going north reaches Hudson Bay; water going south reaches the Gulf of Mexico. My theory is that this area was recognized by medieval Norsemen as being very special, as evidenced by all the nice chisel-work still with us today.

Reply

Americanegro

5/2/2017 05:45:31 pm

Yeah, whatever bro. It's too bad Google, Big Academia and the Samsonite Institution are both suppressing and ignoring, on alternate days, all the "the many remarkable evidences".

Peer review journals _do_ accept articles from non-academics, but anyone with a criminal justice degree is a scholar in my book so I say go for it!

It's a shame no one's found any pottery. Those folks in Big Academia love pottery. Maybe the Templar Cistercians had perfected or recovered a secret Atlantean post-pottery technology lost to us in the present.

Reply

Weatherwax

5/3/2017 01:22:46 am

Again, it has the makings a fine fantasy novel. But fantasy is all it is. And there are literary blogs that are probably a better fit than this one.

Reply

flip

5/3/2017 06:48:14 pm

Here's a puzzle: why would the Templars leave the very people and wealth they had been so good at maintaining, in order to travel halfway around the world to a continent where there was no money? I mean, they were funded by kings and rich merchants, had a lot of property and money, they had connections and access to power, and even when disbanded could easily join a similar group of people doing mostly the same thing... Even if they felt like they had to escape, would they really be so motivated as to leave their entire world (because that's what Europe was to them) and go live in some barbaric uncivilised backwater? Isn't it more likely they'd stay where they were and turn their skills to something else, or simply move to a country where their skills were more appreciated?

Are people really that naive that they think the Templars were that bloody noble and pious that they'd just suddenly decide they'd had enough of being wealthy?

Oh wait... yeah, some are.

Reply

Joe Scales

5/3/2017 07:05:03 pm

You underestimate the Fringe. They're not constrained by such trivialities as logic, reason or accuracy. They just make stuff up as they go along. Most for profit or notoriety. Others guided by those pesky voices only they can hear.

At Risk

5/4/2017 12:05:33 am

FLIP, what you are saying sounds a bit odd, but that is what happened, apparently. Templars started out poor and then became wealthy in the sense that they became Europe's bankers, charging interest even, which may have had something to do with their fall from grace (in God's eyes), besides losing Jerusalem.

However, what I had in mind, FLIP, was something more in the order of regular monks, not so-called fighting monks. The fact of the matter is that the entire Whetstone River in SD, near the MN border, may have been marked up by monks. It was not at all unusual back in the Middle Ages for various monk groups to seek out desolate places. We may think of early Greenland as an example, with some Irish monks having arrived there earlier than the later settlements we all know about.

In the case of Cistercian monks, though, it may not have been unusual for other fellow monks--fighting monks--to give them protection during perceived hazzardous travels. Since it is also well known that the Knights Templar had their own fleet of ships (this is not conjecture), it falls within reasonable speculation to consider that these fighting monks, otherwise known as Templars, may have gone along on an expedition or two down into the strategic waterway merging area I spoke of earlier. This is just one notion, possibly involving the Catholic Church.

However, I think it is just as likely that the code-stone I referenced was left by a different entity entirely. Powerful post-Viking people from Norway, Iceland and Greenland were eager to discover new lands to settle back when the climate was more favorable--meaning less ice and better weather for crops. Of course, I'm talking about a time, too, before disease de-populated much of Europe, including the Nordic countries.

I believe there was a time when visiting and attempting to claim land way south of Hudson Bay was likely a valid proposition, perhaps as much as continuing to visit Vinland off and on was for several hundred years. I'm just hoping that when whatever was purposely buried in MN is finally unearthed by professionals, it may identify who buried it...and about when. I think we all may be in for a big Gomer surprise!

(A further fantasy to consider, FLIP: In medieval times, treasure represented power; power was represented by treasure...valuables. Perhaps a down payment representing some Nordic entity's power was made on a future region of land now called America.)

Weatherwax

5/4/2017 04:54:10 pm

"I believe there was a time when visiting and attempting to claim land way south of Hudson Bay was likely a valid proposition,"

It may be a valid hypothesis, but there is zero evidence outside of your delusions.

Only Me

5/2/2017 04:41:02 pm

>>>​After Pres. Donald Trump called the Constitution of the United States “archaic” this week and said our system of government is a “bad thing for the country,”<<<

Not exactly. Here's what he *actually* said:

"We don’t have a lot of closers in politics and I understand why. It’s a very rough system, it’s an archaic system. You look at the rules of the Senate, even the rules of the House, [but] the rules of the Senate and some of the things you have to go through, it’s really a bad thing for the country in my opinion.

There are archaic rules and maybe at some point, we’re going to have to take those rules on because for the good of the nation things are going to have to be different. You can’t go through a process like this. It’s not fair, it forces you to make bad decisions. I mean, if you’re forced into doing things that you would normally not do except for these archaic rules, so —"

As this article points out, "Rather, Trump was faulting the internal House and Senate rules — such as the filibuster — which are not set by the Constitution."

In regards to "ways to limit or repeal the First Amendment", the transcript itself shows the discussion dealt with libel laws before moving on to punishment for burning the American flag. Of course, nothing is going to change, but, there was no talk of repeal.

The Andrew Jackson thing? Oh yeah, pretty dumb.

I thank Glazov. It's nice to see other people expose the alt-right nonsense along the same lines as yourself.

One of the problems with everything Trump says is that he is so regularly incoherent that it's hard to understand his point sometimes, or even if he understand his own point. Clearly, I ought not to have trusted news reports without trying to make sense of the transcript. I've amended the sentence accordingly.

I'm no defender of Wolter but a small point of contention to your implication he thinks America was founded by the divine (through some lineage tied to Jesus) is not correct IMO.

Wolter does not consider Jesus to be divine, nor is their any solid evidence to suggest Jesus was divine or even existed for that matter.

1 billion people believing such is their prerogative but does not make it so

Reply

Americanegro

5/2/2017 05:58:05 pm

One of the things that suck(er)ed me in when I came across Holy Blood Holy Grail in 1984 or so was the authors' argument that Jesus had a legitimate claim to being King due to his descent. Of course due to depending on a single source, the New Testament, it's kind of shaky but makes infinitely more sense than being divine, whatever that is.

So really if Jesus is the progenitor, the Venus Families myth is a story of ... wait for it America ... PEZ!

It depends on what you mean by "divine," I guess. Wolter, of course, doesn't believe Jesus was the son of God, but he nevertheless thinks that Jesus was part of a divine kingship with secret knowledge and connections to some archaic source of wisdom. I'm using "divine" in a bit more of a figurative way.

Reply

At Risk

5/3/2017 12:08:46 pm

I just read Scott's article in "The American Edge" newsletter, and I think I better understand where he is coming from. As far as I know, he isn't a Christian, and history is pretty clear that Freemasonry isn't a Christian organization. Freemason's ideology dosen't fit in with Christianity, especially since Freemasons generally welcome all faiths across the globe--those that believe in one God, anyway, I take it. Personal salvation doesn't fit in...personal advancement does. I don't think Scott believes in "The Divine."

Scott mentions in the essay that Templars saw the combined symbols on the "bone box," but he didn't say the Templars made the marks. I would think it possible they did make the marks, especially if these symbols had already been associated with Christ centuries earlier. Alternately, I suppose the message on the box may have been carved by Jesus' family between the time He was put to death, and the time He arose, thinking it would be needed at a later time. (Not.)

I have noticed through recent research that the X and even the Hooked-X are at times in history connected to both Christianity and to Christ. I just pointed out on another blog (Wolter's) how what appears to be early American Ogham from the Irish or possibly Welch apparently contains a small hooked-x associated with Christianity, or perhaps with Christ. It also seems as though there is a commonality between expressions of "The Beginning and The End" in both this Ogham and on the bone-box in Jerusalem. But, how does The Beginning and The End jive with physical bones? It doesn't. I wholeheartedly believe that Jesus and His risen bones are eternal, which means, ultimately, that any bones found on Earth are not from Jesus.

We know that the Kensington Runestone contains many Hooked-X's, besides several runestones from our American East Coast. I think it is very likely that the Hooked-X in the case of the KRS was being used by Christians. To me, this is the most likely explanation, and it isn't stretching things at all to go on to say that I think it's possible that the KRS party were actually looking for evidence of an earlier claim. It's beginning to make sense to me that the KRS party were possibly going up the wrong river in their search for their evidence of a huge land claim.

I think it likely that they missed finding the proposed Norse Code-stone I found marking the discharge of the river right next to the one they were on. The Chippewa River is associated with the KRS party, while the next river over, only several miles away at times--and also running north/south, is the Pomme de Terre. Again, I think it's possible that the KRS party were paddling up the wrong stream in looking to acquire or re-acquire something...likely evidence of an earlier land-claim.

Thanks for the indulgence to speculate here...on-subject too!

Reply

Americanegro

5/3/2017 03:58:24 pm

Wow, the effing nonsense never stops with you, does it?

Graham

5/2/2017 06:43:44 pm

You bringing up Count Arthur de Gobineau made me think again of the documentary series 'Hidden Colors' which makes the same kind of sweeping claims about the origins of human civilization, but states that it was all down to (West) Africans.

Inspired by months of reading this website, I wrote the following. Hope you like it:

Could it be true that George Washington was actually a German immigrant named "Georg Weisserman"? New research indicates that this is a distinct possibility.

A Virginia man claims to have found a 18th century diary in a German archive that proves just this. George, or Georg, as he was known in his hometown of Hannover, was an exceptionally skilled horseman who learned surveying from the Count of Anhalt. He disappears from the historical record in Hannover at just about the same time that Washington's name is recorded in the early American sources about the future-president.

To learn more about this intriguing story that is bound to turn American history textbooks upside-down, I spoke to the American historian Scott Shubitz.

"I'm not saying that it is impossible," said Shubitz. "But, I'd really want to see the evidence, and at this point, the theory just doesn't sound that credible."

But of course there is much about the past that we don't know. For example, is it possible that Weisserman could learn to speak English without an accent? Why don't any sources refer to George Washington's German accent?

"I'm not aware of any sources that refer to George Washington having a German accent," said Shubitz, "but then again, I'm not familiar with all of the sources on this. Besides, plenty of things were not recorded."

As any American historian can attest, there were many Germans in the British colonies, and plenty who learned to speak English. Are there any sources that refer to any of these German immigrants in the colonies speaking with a German accent?

Again, Shubitz: "I am only aware of a few sources from the colonial period that mention German immigrants speaking with a German accent. Certainly, for most Germans in the colonies, there is no record of their speech patterns. For all we know, they could have been speaking Kling-on."

A Kling-on-speaking, German-born Georg Weisserman as the first president of the United States? It sounds a bit far-fetched, but when we connect the dots, it becomes clear that this is a very real possibility.

I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens.

Reply

Americanegro

5/3/2017 01:18:03 am

I don't care one way or the other, but I will demolish.

The story does not include stoneholes so can be dismissed out of hand. Nothing about English birth records?

"A Virginia man claims to have found a 18th century diary in a German archive that proves just this. George, or Georg, as he was known in his hometown of Hannover, was an exceptionally skilled horseman who learned surveying from the Count of Anhalt. He disappears from the historical record in Hannover at just about the same time that Washington's name is recorded in the early American sources about the future-president."

Rilly dude?

"But of course there is much about the past that we don't know. For example, is it possible that Weisserman could learn to speak English without an accent?"

NO, IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE. THE STATE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE A LEVEL 5 LANGUAGE COMPETENCY CLASSIFICATION.

"I'm not aware of any sources that refer to George Washington having a German accent," said Shubitz, "but then again, I'm not familiar with all of the sources on this. Besides, plenty of things were not recorded."

Argument from ignorance and see below.

"As any American historian can attest, there were many Germans in the British colonies, and plenty who learned to speak English. Are there any sources that refer to any of these German immigrants in the colonies speaking with a German accent?

Again, Shubitz: "I am only aware of a few sources from the colonial period that mention German immigrants speaking with a German accent. Certainly, for most Germans in the colonies, there is no record of their speech patterns. For all we know, they could have been speaking Kling-on."

When there's a lot of people, the way they talk doesn't get called "accents". There were a lot of Germans in the 13 Colonies.

Reply

A C

5/3/2017 04:09:46 am

As W. A. Wilson proved conclusively, George Washington was actually Adam Weishaupt, who was Bavarian, so its quite impossible that he was a different german from Hannover.

Hi Jason, something strange is happening: I'm not able anymore to share your articles on facebook, it says that it can't access to the website. Do you know of any technical change on your blog that could prevent the sharing? or is the problem on FB?

Darling! I see you DID hear me! It's lovely to find OUR TARDIS is Almost Exactly as YOU left it, when wandering off into the wild wood of observer bias. I can tell your still annoyed by that Devil Tacticus. Has his radiant candor so starteled you into omitting the insuination common at one time that Ludwig of Bavaria was more fond of his troops than any other mistress? Perhaps not. You DID thougtfully remember to include POTUS Trump's edited commentary and a thoughtful gentleman patron of this virtual salon pointed NOT to the abuse of natural philosophy carefully gilded to bolster your own upbringing but rather to what your penchant for reflexivity dismissed: Free Will. The gentleman who mentioned this however chose to follow you thru the Alt-Right observer bias curve into ideology and himself lost the vantage point but retained the civic intent by using the idiom "First Amendment." As attending Hagatha rather than Troll contributor to Jason's "Salon" please pardon me my sweet for choking on the Krauter's ratio of water to wine this evening. It's TOO KIND OF YOU & YOUR TARGET(s) to discuss all ideology as if it's not a Phyrric Victory move so far "Left" one ends up "Right." Look at those Mormon Natives. Now.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Author

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.